that's just as true today as it was 44 years ago when he signed that legislation. this is not about partisanship or about procedure, and everyone knows we're here at 1:00 in the morning because of my friends on the other side of the aisle. for them to say with a straight face -- and i notice some of them didn't have that straight face -- that we're here because of us is without any foundation whatsoever. and everyone knows that. this is not about politics. it certainly is not about polling. it's about people. it's about life and death in america. it's about human suffering, and given the chance to relieve this suffering, we must. citizens in each of our states have written to tell us they're broke because of our broken health care system. some send letters with even worse news, news of grave illnesses, preventable death.

for weeks, we've heard opponents complain about the number of pages in this bill, but i prefer to think of this bill in terms of the people it will help. a woman named lisa osalka lives in garnerville, nevada, a beautiful city below the sierra nevada mountains. she lives there with her two daughters, both of whom are in elementary school. the youngest suffers seizures. the teachers now think she has a learning disability. because of her family history, lisa, the girl's mom, is at high risk for cervical cancer. although she is supposed to get an exam every three months, she doesn't go. if she is lucky, she goes once a year, and most of the time she is not very lucky. when lisa lost her job, she lost her health coverage. now both lisa and her daughter miss the tests and preventative medicine that could keep them healthy. her long letter to me ended with a simple plea. it was we want to be able to go

to a doctor. that's a direct quote from her. that's why this bill will insure all americans can get the preventative tests and screenings they need. i'm voting yes, mr. president, because i believe lisa and her daughter deserve to be able to go to the doctor. a teenager named caleb wolz is a high school student from sparks, nevada. like so many kids, he used to play soccer when he was younger. now he just sticks to skiing and rock climbing. you can forgive him, i'm sure, for giving up soccer, mr. president. you see, caleb was born with legs that end above his knees. as children mature, even caleb, they grow out of their clothes. most kids grow out of their shoes. caleb doesn't. a lot of kids probably get a new pair every year, but caleb has

needed a new pair of prosthetic legs every year since he was 5. unfortunately, unbelievably, caleb's insurance company has decided it knows better than his doctor and has decided caleb doesn't need those legs. that's why this bill will make it illegal for insurance companies to use pre-existing conditions as an excuse to take our money but not give you coverage. this is a big change. it is a good change. i'm voting yes because i believe caleb deserves a set of prosthetics that fit. ken hansen wrote to me from mesquite, nevada, a town on the border of nevada and utah. he has problems and parts of his feet have been amputated. he can't go to the doctor because he makes too much to qualify for medicaid and too

little to afford private insurance. i share with the senate exactly what ken wrote me." i'm very frustrated because it seems my only hope is that i die very soon. i can't afford to stay alive." end of quote. that's why this bill will expand medicaid to cover people like ken from mesquite, nevada. we're caught in the middle. i'm voting yes, because when someone tells me his only hope is to die, i think we have to take a close look at that. i can't look away. i cannot possibly do nothing. a man by the name of mike tracy lives in north las vegas, nevada. his 26-year-old son has been an insulin-dependent diabetic since he was a baby. the insurance mike's son gets through work won't cover his treatments and the tracys can't afford to buy insurance on their own. but their problems are about more than money. since they couldn't afford to treat his diabetes, it developed

into a disease called addison's disease, which of course they can't afford to treat either. this disease can be fatal. this is what mike wrote me two weeks ago. again i quote. "i don't know what to pray for first. that i will die before my son will so i don't have to bear the burden, or that i can outlive him so i can provide support to his family when he is gone." end of quote. quite a set of prayers, mr. president. this shouldn't be a choice any american should have to make. it shouldn't be a choice any father or mother should have to make. and when given the chance to help people just like mike, our choice should be very easy. that's what this legislation is all about. these are hard-working citizens with heart breaking stories. they are people who play by the rules and simply want their insurance company to also do the same. they are not alone. these tragedies don't happen

only to nevadans. they don't happen to people who despite all their pain find time to write to their leaders in congress. these tragic events happen to people on the east coast, west coast and everywhere in between. these tragedies happen to americans in small towns and big cities. these tragedies happen to citizens on the left side of the political spectrum, on the right side. as mike tracy wrote in his powerful letter about his son -- again a quote -- "democrats need health care, republicans need health care, independents need health care. all americans need health care. get it done." end of quote, and he's right. every single senator, every one of us comes from a state where these injustices happen every single day. every single senator represents hundreds, thousands of people who have to choose between paying an electricity bill or a medical bill, between filling a doctor's prescription for

just -- well, maybe just hoping for the best. between their mother's chemotherapy treatment and their daughter's college tuition. as i mentioned earlier, on average, an american dies from lack of health insurance every ten minutes. that means in the short time i have been speaking, our broken system has claimed at least two lives. another american has died, another american has died, two have died a preventable death, each of them. so as our citizens face heart-rendering decisions every day, tonight every senator has a choice to make as well. that choice -- are you going to do all you can to avert the next preventable death? mr. president, i hope so. i urge an aye vote to stop this filibuster. mr. president, i would advise my members that 1984, the senate

adopted a resolution, s. 480, to impose a requirement senators vote from their desks. i know we don't do this all the time, but i would ask tonight that we do vote from our desks and follow the rule s. res. 480. i ask senators vote from their desks. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we the undersigned undersigned senators in -- hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the reid number 3276 to the reid substitute amendment 3786 to h.r. 3590, the patient protection and affordable care act, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call is waived. the question is is it the sense of the senate that debate on amendment numbered 3276 to amendment numbered 2786 to h.r. 3590, the service members

homeownership tax act of 2009, shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there anyone wishing to vote, wishing to change their vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 60. the nays are 40. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. the majority leader. mr. reid: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. kaufman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. kaufman: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the senate now stand in -- i ask we rescind the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaufman: thank you. i ask the unanimous consent the

senate stand in recess until 12:00 noon. that upon convening at noon and any leader time the senate resume consideration of h.r. 3590, with the time until 12:30 p.m. equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. that from 12:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. there will be one hour alternating blocks of time with the majority controlling the first block and all post cloture time continue to run during any recess, adjournment or period of morning business until 6:30 monday. the presiding officer: before the chair announces the unanimous consent agreement, the chair announces that because cloture has been invoked, the motion to refer falls.

without objection, the request is agreed to. the senate stands in recess until 12:00 today. >> overcoming republican

delaying tactics on a 60/40 votes that all the assures passage by christmas. that is from the associated press but procedural vote on tuesday and wednesday and if it moves through those the final passage is likely christmas eve. our live coverage on c-span2 know we will take you to booktv in progress. >> it would be half of price. why do the drug makers let them get away with it? it is the r&d that cost $1 billion per quizzically and make up the cost to produce and ship it they make up all of the cost of research and development. it is a legal fight was a

random drug stores to go to canada and buy it and come here and a salad. that is a conservative sounding argument when you import price control. they clearly do very well the matter who is in power. white can't they lobby candidate? of those lawmakers much more strong? no. we give them a free ride but if you say you have five years to figure out what will happen if it is your job to make sure you can turn a profit, not the federal government's job perk a weird give you the patent exclusivity and after that you are on your own. there are a handful of other items with constitutional amendments to make it illegal for the government to own a share or a portion of a company. bn corporate welfare.

it is a direct transfer of wealth from taxpayers to a private business? where is the constituency to kill corporate welfare and smashed give him a big business collusion? that is a problem and a question and anger and the fact we're democracy can handle that. if you are republican party you want to raise money to the anti-corporate campaign, that is where what

rod paul did. he ran president 2008 and no matter what you think of his ideas he raised $6 million in one day. i should say donors gave him $6 million in one day. he did not and -- organized. they set up a money bomb. his supporters at ways to average of less than $100. even barack obama it even though he was raising money from goldman sachs, that was the reported but the perception that he was not hillary clinton. i will say that for all of the coziness or common ground with big business coming hillary clinton would have been 10 times more, but he was not hillary clinton so people thought i am disenfranchised i will give him money and then day he

gave there 10 or $20 to him. i will be happy to take questions i want to restate my initial the suspect every time the government gets bigger, somebody gets rich. i have tried to name all of the names and in a pattern to show that it is not an ollie but it is a pattern and the effect that obama has on the nation is not what people think that it is. thank you for your time. [applause] i am happy to take questions. stand up and wait for the microphone. police.

>> talk about the revolving door in politics and big business the idea that when people lose an election or retire from politics they tend to go into lobbying and once they come bahe ben bernanke, and hank paulson are well known for this. can you talk about that and how it could be stopped through laws or a butcher action? >> i am glad you're reminded me of that. my friends do this. they just kind of like me with their work on capitol hill than two years later they have nice suits and offering to buy new lunch because they left the capitol hill job and a lobbying firm hired them because then they know when he calls his friend and says the want to talk to about the farm bill, that his old

boss or their colleagues will take the call. that is the revolving door. obama's said he would stop the revolving door. his wife house chief of staff is rahm emanuel who there is almost not the right word because during on the clinton 1992 campaign as a chief fund-raiser he was being paid by goldman sachs at the same time as a consultant. he could be paid to work for clinton for all we know. then he goes to will work at a private equity ferber ferber -- firm. if you look at the books they were all people who had business before the clinton administration. what is rahm emanuel skill? >> very hard working and effective but 1.6 million dollars in 2.5 years for our have to imagine that some of

the skill was to know who to call in the clinton right house to get done what he wanted to get done. he makes one point* 6 million by bilking his contact then uses that money to run for congress now he is in the obama lighthouse but also the revolving door is actually now a lobbyist who is the acts obama administration officials already less than one year in. somebody has gone and come up left and become a lobbyist. this is damaging because anyone that strengthens our it gives more power to those to become a lobbyist in effect take political power away. also gives perverse incentives to people in the government that particularly hurts republicans because they can say we will kill the government program. that way when it gets past somebody has to help me.

that is very problematic. some of obama's actions have helped her you cannot become, if you were at a level you cannot, you swear not to become a lobbyist for a while after you leave or not to lobby the administration. i would say honestly anyone that is an elected official or makes over $100,000 at any point* should be prohibited from becoming a lobbyist for i don't think that would pass because people who would be affected are those that write the bills. on the other hand,, that is the only what the proposal that i propose and i probably would not back that because it is a contradiction of the first amendment but the real problem is with government. the way to get rid of

corruption in high places is to get rid of the high places. tim wheeler cayman up without saying prefer you cannot simultaneously increase covering control over the economy and decrease the role of lobbyists. that is one place my only reform and obviously my bias but have the government have less control over the economy. i am happy to take another question. >> how would you think obama plans to pay for the new regulation program said he is trying to do? >> to start with spending spending, the stimulus bill, that debt was issued than what will we do when it comes to? a lot of that is obama's problem.

it is like a rotating credit card will probably bar again to pay off debt and then who knows? but on the other hand,, the health care stufftuff the global warming health care reform has much a hire of a price tag and our history of predicting the expenditures in the new government program like medicare, social security has been very bad. it has outpaced. whenever taxes he introduces will not be adequate. i am not an economist but i would not be surprised if we see inflation. the government creates money out of thin air. that is how we did the bailout. i do not think we will see significant spending cuts because right now the number one objection to the health care bill is democrats are

trying to cut medicare. why are republicans are arguing against spending money? part of it is insurance companies do not like medicare and republicans know it is a good issue. and nobody is looking for real spending cuts. it is more money, more borrowing, and more taxes. >> i know you expressed your opinion on domestic legislation to look at environmental problems in the u.s., but there is the g8 some it coming up and there are proposed talks there will be legislation that would have a a national a fact that that might cut

down on carbon emissions in china where they have other middle manufacturers. can i have your opinion? >> you're talking about copenhagen? this is a global get together on what to do. talking people who go to these un events domino prost global regulation will come out of it and they will even propose global coordination but to dance your specific question what would curbing emissions do? it would break apart the coalition for greenhouse gases because some businesses like caterpillar which manufactures in the

u.s., we already have the environmental regulations if you put current regulations on top and also on china, then all of a sudden, you can make the field more between u.s. manufacturers and car manufacturers but then with mickey and alcoa, they just want domestic. then you see the manufacturers as support a cap-and-trade but we did assuming we would lobby china and india to restrain their e missions. but the growing countries, imagine if you were dirt-poor four years while western europe his burning coal, getting rich and building skyscrapers parker is just 32 trickle and then the u.n. says and by the way that cheap energy? you cannot do that it a more. you will not stand for that if you are the third world.

i think if we will get anything, the rich countries will go ahead and constrained 30 missions and then pay for subsidizing clean energy in the three days third world. that is the most you get as far as co-operation. more questions? i will follow-up on the global warming stuff right now. general electric is having eighth joint venture called greenhouse guest services that deals with carbon offset and greenhouse guest. what they have done for example,, they have on a trash heap bid north carolina they are sucking all the methane guest. 23 more times as powerful as

carbon dioxide. they turn that into co2 which lowers dioxide levels. google pays them to do it because google gets the greenhouse guest credits because they are destroying methane. what does google do? they say we are curbing neutral but if the government mandates you have a credit to run a factory, a power plant, than general electric is making becomes worth, morrice to make maybe that is capitalism but but since the guest of this insurer is a global power company building coal-fired power plants in the third world. they have clean-air plans that appear that in effect but what else happens if you

tax coal effectively? you make a few were american companies by coal, it is cheaper for the third world to buy coal. the nuclear power plants are getting subsidized day of the coal-fired kidding cheaper coal but ge and atheist did not invest station ventas. it was stopped in 1990 and that company was called enron but ge picked up the windmills and the lobbying practice than i have '01 chapter in hear that spends more on lobbying the and any other country. they are never to thus far as individual corporations. our reporter obama opens a new policy plan comedy opens a new business. high-speed rail? g. wraps up of business and

hires a new office. of obama's start stem cell research and she starts the largest companies in the world. you see it again and again. the causality probably happens i do not think the bob is trying to enrich ge even though they still own msnbc prayer even though they seeing the but hall in new york at obama's som. [laughter] i don't think he is trying to enrich them but they just see the way the two make money in the world of obamanomics is to line up with government and what does that do? it sacks of entrepreneurs and that means you don't have jobs when you get out of college and thus one of the chosen few that it could

go, microsoft, general electric, they will increasingly control more of the economy but that has a nazi fact of being bad on the whole economy. >> i don't know if the microphone can reach that far. [laughter] >> you mentioned earlier you felt the american people a being left out in favor of big government and big business. however believe specifically in terms of the ballet and the stimulus package of fire remember correctly were policies that the times of 40 of the majority of the

american public. had the feel the government should address those issues when the majority of the people are supporting an initiative that you feel it in the end will damage them and give them the short end of the sec? >> i do know the stimulus had majority support but the bailout, i know they have 19 -- 900 bail-out phone calls i do not answer that well but most people oppose the bill of every four honorable member voted against the wall street bailout. maybe they supported it in detroit but also polls should not drive policy. principal and the constitution should constrain what you do. i don't think the bailout was constitutional or buying in general motors was constitutional regardless of the people supported that.

i am very happy to take the anti-bailout side against any politician that thanksgiving that money to goldman sachs are bankamerica was popular at the time when they helped to create the collapse. this is why i am not a politician. i would probably get the two doubt very quickly for opposing of the measures. i want to put tolls on every highway and that would not be very popular because right now all transportation is subsidizing this trucks and make them pay for the road. i am not a politician because i do not set policy by what is most popular but will do best and moral principles brokerages wrong to take money from regular people to give it to big corporations. that should be enough to settle a fact not to do the bailouts. thank you very much for your time. i appreciate it.

>> >> whether some of the best qualities of religion that you also think is dangerous? >> it makes people happy. if it makes people happy, it is by social integration. belonging into a group. if a group of demands a you do certain things in order to become a member you become dependent on those demands come you might do anything. with good group is the wrong kind of group, you may be a dangerous person. >> the big thing is happy this but the bad thing is depending on that for your

sense of fulfillment. that is the problem. >>host: who is dying for happen? to make people who feel that they don't the long and to prove themselves in order to belong. the group that tells them they're going to happen is usually a religious group but the problem to begin with is not religious but that they don't belong and that is what is happening in the middle east. two many people no longer belong in any recognizable group. that is what you see the violence over there and not here. >>host: how do come up with your theories? >> i have been doing religion psychology over 20 years and have studied other cases of people and injuring themselves for religion. like a rite of passage or pull bridge where they walk

on their knees or the initiation sparc we have all seen the monks to whip themselves and that sort of thing. i am an expert on why religious people feel they need to hurt themselves in order to get what they want which is salvation. >>host: where do you teach? >> georgetown university. >>host: dieing four happen. why the best qualities are also the most dangerous

>> hello. thank you for being here. this is great. how're you? >> congratulations on your buck. >> you will have to read it. have you read it? >> yes. i did. >> a very nice and dedication. hello. high. how were you? >> from the idea is from public eight days publication took me three months. august through november but you have to read it. you can read it on the way home in a very short period of time.

i have read it most of the times. it is good. i am always the optimist. i think we're making progress yes. the secretary general is in town and talking to people. people want to get this done. now the campaign and energy works. we are a part of it. there are 500 people in the field all over the country.